Shaikh Badshah Usman and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:13638-DB

¶2

1 963-WP-10603-25.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10603 OF 2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10231 OF 2025 IN WP/10603/2025

¶5

QAMRUNNISA BEGAM IKARAMUDDIN SHAIKH VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. Praveen S. Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State Mr. Keshav M. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4 Mr. Harshal Prakash Randhir, Advocate for Respondent No.7

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10790 OF 2025

¶9

SHAIKH BADSHAH USMAN AND ANOTHER

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶12

... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10771 OF 2025 WITH

¶13

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10232 OF 2025 IN WP/10771/2025

¶14

DR. PRADNYA SHANKARRAO KALE AND ANOTHER

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶17

WITH

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO. 10834 OF 2025

¶19

DR. ISHWAR BABURAO GHORUDE AND OTHERS

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶22

Mr. Shambhuraje V. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State

¶23

SVH

¶24

2 963-WP-10603-25.odt

¶25

Mr. Keshav M. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 Mr. Harshal Prakash Randhir, Advocate for Respondent No. 4

¶26

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.

¶27

DATE : 27^th MARCH, 2026

¶28

PER COURT :

¶29

Leave is granted to correct the number of respondents in affidavit-in-reply.

¶30

Petitioners have filed their rejoinder.

¶31

By these petitions, the petitioners challenge their suspension orders dated 09/08/2025, 30/08/2025, 23/08/2025 and 30/08/2025 respectively, issued by the respondent – Kohinoor Shikshan Sanstha, Aurangabad.

¶32

This Court, at the time of admission, has passed detailed order on 23/09/2025, issuing following interim directions:

¶33

“(A) The above quoted directions issued by the committee, forming part of the report submitted by respondent – the Joint Director of Higher Education, are confirmed and all concerned are directed to abide by the said directions.

¶34

(B) In the light of the apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioners, particularly the in-charge principal, it is directed that the respondent – Joint Director of Higher Education shall depute an officer of the said department to accompany the in-charge principal of the college when the teaching and non-teaching staff as well as students enter the college for continuing the academic activities. The said officer shall remain deputed to the said college till the next date, so as to assist the in-charge principal in ensuring proper and smooth functioning of the college.

¶35

SVH

¶36

3 963-WP-10603-25.odt

¶37

(C) The respondent – State Authorities shall ensure that the local police station establishes a police picket in the premises of the said college to ensure that no untoward incident takes place till the next date of listing. Sufficient police personnel shall be deployed so that the officer to be deputed by the department of higher education and the teaching and non- teaching staff as well as students of the college feel secure in the premises.

¶38

(D) The local police shall take necessary steps to accompany the in-charge principal and the officer deputed from the aforesaid department when they enter the premises of the college to prepare a punchnama of the articles found in the premises of the college. This direction is necessitated because of apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioners that there is possibility of the contesting respondents having dumped suspicious material in the premises of the college.

¶39

(E) Till the next date of listing, the respondents President and Secretary of the Sanstha are restrained from entering the premises of the college.

¶40

(F) All the respondents – State Authorities shall ensure that the above directions, as also the directions issued by the committee quoted herein above and confirmed by this Court are implemented and complied with, so that the functioning of the college is restored to normalcy and the future of the students is not jeopardized.

¶41

(G) The suspension orders impugned in writ petition Nos. 10603/2025, 10771/2025, 10790/2025, 10834/2025 are stayed till the next date of listing.”

¶42

Respondent – Secretary of Kohinoor Shikshan Sanstha has filed affidavit-in-reply contending that vide order dated 18/11/2025, suspension of the petitioners has been revoked and they have been reinstated.

¶43

Learned advocate for petitioners submits that the petitioners were in continuous service and in view of the stay granted by this Court, the suspension orders were not given effect

¶44

SVH

¶45

4 963-WP-10603-25.odt

¶46

to. He further submits that the direction given by this Court in clause ‘(E)’ quoted above, may be continued.

¶47

Learned advocate for respondent – Secretary submits that the said direction is also given in Writ Petition No.10802/2025, which is continued and the matter is likely to be listed in the month of April, 2026.

¶48

In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of by confirming the interim directions given by this Court vide order dated 23/09/2025.

¶49

Pending civil applications also stand disposed of.

¶50

(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

¶51

SVH

Shaikh Badshah Usman and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Badshah Usman and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deelip Pralhad Hiwale vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Deelip Pralhad Hiwale vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Latabai Ashokrao Sonawane and Another vs the Union of India through the Deputy Secretary and Others

Ajay Nanasaheb Mhaske and Another vs the State of Maharashtra

Maroti Venkatrao Bhinge vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradnya Shankarrao Kale and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others